234 CHAPTER 5
after the mid-eight century, Derbent and Samandar ceased to belong (or were
no longer subject) to the Khazars. She wrongfully cites Al-Masudi’s account
of the Jidan Kingdom (Khaidak, the successor of the Hunnic kingdom in
Dagestan, which was famous in the seventh century), that supposedly showed
its independence from Khazaria. E. Galkina quotes the Khazar ruler Joseph’s
statement that the entire Cis-Caspian Plain of Dagestan up to Derbent was
subjected to him, highlighting the fact that he does not name the any subject
tribes or peoples in this area.42
Firstly, there is no logic that could combine the accounts about Samandar
and Derbent. While Derbent did in fact fall under Khazar rule for a while and
was lost by Khazaria after the end of the wars with the Arabs during the first
half of the eight century, Samandar was the Khazar capital prior to that. Eastern
sources continuously connect this center with Khazaria until the end of the
khaganate’s existence, and not the other way round, as E. Galkina is trying to
portray it. Al-Masudi, whom she cites, explicitly emphasizes that Derbent suf-
fered much damage from the Jidan Kingdom, whose people were part of the
lands, subject to the Khazar kings. Its capital was Samandar, which at the time
of Al-Masudi was populated by Khazars.43 There are also accounts that Khazar
troops supported the rulers of Derbent (in 916, for instance).44 The observa-
tions of Al-Istakhri and Ibn Hawqal allow for the conclusion that Samandar
was the second most important city in Khazaria, governed by its own king
(malik), who was related by family ties to the ruler of Itil.45
42 Galkina 2006, 137. Galkina’s article is quite notable in its incorrectness. Along with some
very interesting observations, it also contains a few unacceptable and biased ones, which
are often presented as a final verdict. Thus, for example, following V. Sedov Galkina 2006,
135 identifies the Imenkovo culture as a Slavic one (see for instance Sedov 2001). Lastly
on this issue, see Stashenkov 2006; Petrukhin 2006b, 33–34. The ethnic origins of the
Imenkovo culture are disputable. It has been identified as Turkic, Mordovian, Finno-
Ugric and Baltic (Kazakov 1992, 3–4 and 231–232; Gening and Khalikov 1964, 152–153). It
is also not clear to what extent the bearers of the Imenkovo culture influenced the Volga
Bulgars (Matveeva and Kochkina 2005, 4–5; Matveeva 2003).
43 See the text in Dunlop 1967, 205.
44 See Minorskii 1963, 66.
45 I will not delve here into the discussions regarding the location of Samandar and the
nature of its ties to the Jidan Kingdom (Khaydak), since they do not change the charac-
teristics of this area in Dagestan as a part of the Khazar Khaganate’s territory. For more
information on this topic, see Artamonov 1962, 399; Fedorov and Fedorov 1978, 174 and
179–216; Golden 1980, 234–237; Magomedov 1994, 159–161; Novosel’tsev 1990, 127 and 144;
Romashov 2002–2003, 92–98 and 2004, 194–195.